On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[email protected]> wrote: > This would be an incompatible change, would it?
Yes, indeed, insofar as anyone who scripted to expect the shaded version to be sitting in target under finalName would be broken > > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Benson Margulies > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I want to take up a suggestion of Stephen Connolly and fix the >> interactions between shade and jar by changing the default file name >> of 'replacing' shaded jars. I'd like incremental jar-ing to work by >> default, so I want to change the default behavior. 2.1 or 3.0? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later > become extinct. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
